So you believe the government is telling the truth regarding the “moon landing”?
As with everything the government says and does, there is a mix of truth and lie in it all. There are some things that they do that are evil lies and they lock up the files for it for a lifetime, like JFK and more recently the jewflu jab data. There are also things that they hide the lies in committee retellings of the events, like 9/11 and the Warren Commission.
The moon landings are a bit different. They didn't lock up the files nor did they need a commission to craft the story in a particular narrative. The whole space race thing was too public to easily lie about it or fake it because the rest of the world was able to verify certain aspects of the events that could not be faked. Because of that, I have to err on the side of the moon landings happening for real, but with the publicly visible version of the story being highly edited or simulated.
Why do that? Simple. They couldn't afford to have anything they were unaware of beforehand get out on live TV. They needed to ensure that if they discovered anything that might be a threat (or advantage) to the US that they could see and handle it before it got out in the public. Also, if disaster had struck and the crew were killed, they could reduce the impact or sweep it under the rug more easily by delaying and editing the data/transmissions. The local TV and radio stations do this all the time so that they don't get caught in a situation that would be bad for them if broadcasted. CNN failed to do this on NYE and got trolled by fake twatter accounts.
So yeah, I believe it happened but that we were given a different view of the whole thing. The technology we gained from the moonshot program is too real to be something that they just faked on a movie set with Kubrick. The truth is a mix of reality and fictional creation. That's basically what all of reality is for us the last 100 years or longer.
How about this: the general public is so fucking retarded that they will believe whatever the idiot box tells them to believe. Even that the Apollo LM landed on the moon.
The general public does fit your description, but individually some people don't. I don't form my opinions on this matter by what the TV says. I form them by my own research into the things that went alongside of the moon landings. It's hard to explain away the extreme effort and engineering that went into some aspects of the support equipment and technologies if they were not needed to fake the whole thing. I find it interesting that so many people will believe that free energy technology is 100% real and suppressed by the government but those same people believe the moon landing is fake. It really says a lot about what those people really do want out of the world and the truth.
I'm very much in line with what you've written. Here is something I wrote on it a while ago but never posted. I think it is still a possibility as it does help to explain a few things that seem a little odd to me, but as I haven't yet learned enough about them to properly understand whether they're normal and expected I just tried to formulate something that seemed plausible to account for them until I acquire more knowledge on the matters.
(*Edited a sentence. I should have re-read what I had written before pasting it and hitting send, or re-written it all over again to be up to date with what my current thoughts on the topic are.)
I believe that it did happen, but that the first landing actually occurred quite some time before the 'live' broadcast to the public. What was shown to the public was not fully 'live', but was instead a combination of live participants (actors, directors, controllers) following a script and fake interacting with both original landing footage, the ongoing live landing, and also with footage of re-created scenes to help with blending and selling the production as occurring perfectly and as planned.
The United States government couldn't afford for the event to be anything short of absolutely perfect, let alone risk it being unsuccessful, due to the political world climate at the time. They needed it to be successful and for this success to be seen by the world as having occurred perfectly as planned and without issues.
Can you imagine the world watching the astronauts suffocating live on air due to a pinhole leak in a seal, or as they burned alive in a cabin fire (as happened during testing of the module and which demanded a total redesign)?
A total failure being broadcast live and to the whole world would have been extremely detrimental to the status and power of the United States government and its military on the world stage, as well as damaging to the US citizenry's view of their government and their nation's power and status. It was also an event of great national pride that it was the United States that took this step for all mankind. If the US got egg on its face in front of the whole world right when nations were barely restrained from going to war, who knows what might have come about as a result.
- It was likely a controlled and scripted presentation with a mix of pre-recorded footage from when the successful landing actually did occur combined with some live footage as well as re-created and custom-scripted scenes.
- As it was likely live elements synced in with the pieces of edited recordings, perhaps aspects of the original footage couldn't be shown, or aspects might not have occurred ideally, or possibly that some scenes would require scripting and had to be re-created via a 'set' like a movie in order to re-create some scenes as they wanted them to be presented. This would also explain the Kubrick connection, as well as the inconsistencies of why some footage seems to have elements that are out of place or inconsistent with what would be expected in reality, while most of the other footage does have those elements behaving as would be expected in reality.
- I doubt that they would have been able to rehearse most or even much of it at all beforehand, so it likely required controllers and directors for instructing the participants of when to make responses or to ask certain questions in order to keep timing and syncing between the live actions of participants, the actual landing footage, and re-created footage. (such as there being background voices in some recordings counting down/up for when to respond to a live question to try to simulate and account for distance and signal delay, etc.)
- With a mixture of original footage and re-created footage being interacted with by live participants with a script, directors and controllers, it would have appeared much like it did. You could imagine it as a sort of stage play with actors who interact with a recording on a TV (or even think Jurassic Park with "John Hammond" interacting with the recording of himself on the screen).
That's a great expansion of the basic concept I put out there. You really filled it in with some good reasoning and thought. While we may never be able to verify any version of the truth, this one does seem the most plausible since it is something we have seen happen in recent times, namely the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. They faked a lot the opening and closing ceremony footage so they could look flawless on the world stage. They also temporarily scrubbed the city of all the bad things they didn't want the world to see on live TV and cleaned up the air pollution by banning cars and industry during those days. The Beijing Olympics did actually happen, but we were shown a modified version of the truth of its happening.
I pretty much see it from the same point of view
This guy writes well for a fucking retard who believes we went to the moon... you stupid fucking moron it is beyond obvious we didn't go to the fucking moon
With every single post you make you out yourself further and further. The nose is showing at an alarming rate and you should step back like 4 yards.
You attack me using a randomly spun up and not-so-intricately woven lie of;
AntiClutch is ran by multiple people, sometimes reasonable and good but often jewish and bad!!!
That just randomly popped up from half a dozen blue accounts that are all now banned and who were all auto-shoahed. What you do when you reply to me like that and then further to Morbo like this is further cement our value to poal. I wish I could be as concise, well written, and formulaic as or . I do. But I can't. I've gone through some shit that I wouldn't wish on shills like yourself. It would destroy you. These are the reasons why I'm so angry constantly. I have reason to be. I also understand opsec, unlike you. So I will never share details of these with anyone.
But all of your claims are based off of laughably easy to disprove falsities. I've done so with 2 already in this thread. All it takes is grade 4 math. That's it. Nothing exceptional.
You are the worst among us. You push and push and push and push some jewish line, like (((flat Earth))) then as people start to see the nose, you walk it back.
It is beyond obvious that Trump and Q are (((psyops))) but you still believe they are not. Reconcile that.
TBQH the lie behind the space race was the most likely (I have zero evidence) enormous weapons programs behind every technological advancement gained. The space race was just a convenient, believable, and generally good coverstory.
You see, this is more plausible of an explanation of the whole thing than most other versions. It's the truth wrapped in lies in order to obscure the real purpose of the program. The Manhattan Project was like that too. There's always more to it than meets the eye, but the "it's fake" narrative is just part of the obfuscation they want. We may never know the truth, but I'm pretty certain we will eventually uncover most of it.
Why have you chosen to believe what the people on TV say about the "moon landings"?
What piece of "evidence" have they provided you that you feel is most compelling?
I would submit that they have actually provided you ZERO evidence, but that you have not yet realized that as of yet. You have interpreted pictures on a screen + heightened emotions + technical gibberish spoken by "authority" + the comfort of group delusion as evidence of exceptional claims. Those claims WILL NOT hold up the moment you acknowledge that you have been looking at them with squinted vision with the goal to continue believing the illusion.
When you realize you want to know and accept the truth about the "moon landing" claims (the "moon landing" was a series of films) more than you want to see people like me as assholes and idiots then you will have everything you need to discern the truth.
Best of luck to you, brother.
What makes you think I draw my conclusions from the talking heads on TV? I am a man of thought, science and engineering. I derive my conclusions from my own analytical study of what all went into the process. There would be no reason to go to the extreme minutia of engineering found in things like the Saturn V fuel delivery system or faring design if you were just going to fake it on TV. There would be no reason to develop the technically advanced projection screen technology used by NASA Mission Control if it were not actually used for the purpose for which it was engineered. It was crazy complex for its time and didn't have any practical application outside of Mission Control so why develop it? Yeah, my conclusions are based on a very deep dive into many of the ancillary technologies that made it possible since none of them would have been produced if they weren't for the real deal.
Is it all 100% true though? No. Nothing ever is. We don't have the whole story but the whole thing isn't fake. Some things likely were to prevent fiascos that they didn't want to air on TV or risk national security over, but for the most part those were just gap fillers to make the whole thing more palatable to a generation who was already TV addicted and expecting a show. I'm open to other possibilities on the matter, but they have to be able to explain why so much effort was put into things that aren't necessary for a fake production to happen. Without that, the possibility has a lot less credence in my opinion.
(post is archived)